List style variations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: it includes both full variations and partials shipped since WordPress 6.6, warns that titles can repeat across kinds, and states that each entry carries an index and kind to disambiguate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences deliver the scope, the included variation types, the returned fields, and the duplicate-title caveat. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will receive (palette, fonts, sizes, index, kind) and the main edge case (duplicate titles across kinds). It could be slightly more explicit about behavior when the 'kind' parameter is omitted, but this is a minor gap for a simple read-only listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'kind' concept (full, colour-only, typography-only partials) and why kind matters given duplicate titles across kinds. This helps an agent understand the enum parameter without needing to infer it from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the active block theme's style variations') and adds concrete details about what is returned (palette, font families, font sizes) and why (to pick one without reading the JSON). It implicitly differentiates this listing tool from related tools like apply_style_variation and list_themes by focusing on variation contents and disambiguation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose statement implies this tool is for choosing a style variation before applying it, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as apply_style_variation, get_global_styles, or list_themes. No explicit exclusions are given, so the guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.